This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: P5 + 1- Iran Nuclear negotiations

Originally Posted by Ockham

I'm saying if indeed the roots of neo-conservatism started in the Democratic Party - I'm curious as to why we (the American Public) doesn't see more typical neo-conservative policy, behavior or views in the Democratic party. The Blue Dogs are now I think extinct who were the moderates - what was considered a "classical" Liberal say in 1965 would now be considered typically conservative or even share views of the Tea Party. I guess my conclusion is that the Democrats have moved so far left in the past 50 years that there are no traces of such roots left in the Democratic Party.

Just an interesting quote from an article of the neo-con movement.

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
*Adam Smith*

Re: P5 + 1- Iran Nuclear negotiations

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Neocons have been itching to strike Iran for decades. That's why they detest any deal that will close their window of opportunity.

Every American should have wanted all along to remove the vile Islamist regime that has been controlling Iran for thirty-five years now. During that time, the Khomeinists in Tehran have sponsored attacks that have killed several thousand American civilians and servicemen. And their attempts to spread Iran's control into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now, apparently, Yemen, have done a lot to foment the violence we are seeing in the Middle East.

Only people who are willfully blind can imagine there is any way other than force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's like imagining that the meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva in 1935, which produced a lot of hollow warnings and a few meaningless sanctions, would stop Mussolini from sending a force to invade Ethiopia. I think it's very likely Israel will bomb Iran's most important nuclear facilities once these talks end. What President Limpwrist does, if and when that happens--or if he does anything at all--remains to be seen.